Conservative Radicals

Crossposted at Right Minds

In our modern politics, the labels of each side are pretty well understood. Liberals are those who want to move the culture and government towards something new, and change the world. Conservatives are those who want to keep things the way they are, and even move back towards a more traditional culture. William F. Buckley summed this view up by saying that conservatism is “standing atwart history, yelling ‘stop.’” The root of the word “conservatism,” of course, is “conserve,” and that is how most conservatives see their movement’s goal—to conserve the past.

That’s a bad goal, and one conservatives should move away from. In order to have a really conservative society, it will be necessary to attain at least the same amount of societal change that liberals try to achieve. “Conservatism” should be about conserving—its goal should be to try to incite an entire cultural revolution.

Conservatives spend a great deal of time wishing for the “old days,” and bemoaning change. (Or “yelling stop,” if you will). But they rarely consider precisely what decade they would choose if given the choice. The fifties? The period of McCarthyism, Jim Crow, and the beginning of the welfare state? Or the thirties, during the New Deal? Maybe the twenties, during Prohibition (an incredibly intrusive act of government) and the beginnings of the collapse of the traditional family, or the teens, where the federal government was passing constitutional amendments giving it increasingly broad powers?

Conservatives are over-affected by nostalgia, and nostalgia is all to often unsupported by fact. The past wasn’t really all that great, and it’s hard to imagine a point where yelling “stop” would have been worthwhile.

In fact, throughout the past century of American history, there has been one dominant theme: liberalism has advanced while conservatism has retreated. (Actually, that holds true for most of American history). Given that that is the case, why should conservatives feel nostalgic for the past?

Right now, abortion is recognized by most people as a legal right, if not a moral one. Aside from pro-lifers, there aren’t many who want to change the status quo. The welfare state, too, is now part of American government, and has been for some time. Most Americans literally can’t imagine changing Social Security or Medicare in any meaningful way. And Americans have gotten used to high levels of government spending—any attempt to slash the federal budget would be met with stunned disbelief by the American people.

From a conservative point of view, all these things are unsustainable, and must be reversed. But they won’t be reversed by calling on the traditions of the past. It was the past that got us to where we are today. Trying to return to some past utopia is pointless.

Rather, conservatives must attempt to totally remake society in a conservative image, moving on from America’s liberal premises. (Not that all of the premises that shape American culture are liberal, but many are). It is conservatives who are (or should be) the true radicals in today’s culture—their mission should be to wholly change the American landscape.

This will necessarily be a difficult challenge, maybe an impossible one. Social revolutions are hard to pull off. American liberals tried during the sixties, and succeeded in pushing through some legislative successes and pushing American culture to the left, but they failed in their larger goal of creating a really liberal society.

Conservatives have had their share of victories as well. But they want anything more, and want to really make America into a conservative nation, they will have to overcome their fascination for a past that never existed and try to claim the future of America.  

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

The root of the word.

The root of the word “conservatism,” of course, is “conserve,” and that is how most conservatives see their movement’s goal—to conserve the past.

If you would like to indulge in the liberal media's phobia on the meaning of conservatism, you are welcome to it. But conservative don't consider their main political goal is to conserved the past, but to conserve our liberty for the future. What liberals have yet to figure out, and what Obama is presently undertaking to instruct them upon, is the direct correlation between more taxes, more government growth and less liberty.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Conservatives live in Reagan's past

What some conservatives can't seem to figure out is that taxation has little to do with individual liberty.

What future do conservatives try to imagine? Every five minutes they're invoking the name of Lord Reagan, and how they need to get back to the early 80's when they were at the zenith of conservative dominance.

 

Does history always move left?

One reason the left appears to win is that failed left-wing movements are no longer considered Left. Another reason is that victorious right-wing movements are frequently reclassified as Left.

You can see these phenomena most clearly in the case of the aftermath of the American Civil War. The losing side engaged in a "long march through the institutions" which first caused a Yankee withdrawal from the occupation of Dixie. It was followed by the growing respectability of eugenics and it then culminated in the capture of the Presidency in 1912.

Come to think of it, the standard left-wing rhetoric about indigenous movements might have been injected into liberalism by Wilson, who might have been looking for an excuse for Confederate independence.

On the other hand, after eugenics failed, racism was re-re-classified as right-wing. (Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia comrade!)

True, liberalism has had its

True, liberalism has had its share of defeats. (And it never really suceeded in really making a truly liberal country). But overall, I think it is accurate to say that America has moved left over the last century.

Additions.

After eugenics was proven invalid as psuedo-science, at that point, anyone still holding onto that belief became right-wing.  You're quite correct though that most Americans are not aware of the extent that eugenics was accepted in the pre-WWII years.  By the 1930's though...it was an exclusively right-wing tenet.

Modern liberalism, with the help of Anthropology, has unshackled itself from it's racist past.  Racism permeated all aspects of Western society, left and right wing.  Hence the concept of "liberal guilt".  I'm sure you've heard of it.  You normally only feel guilty if you have something to feel guilty about, no?

That's not to say that liberals don't occassionaly spew some anti-scientific nonsense (religion in general), but you wrap the continum of political leanings around enough...they tend to meet and overlap at the margins.

Finally, to imply that the course of history has (a) not been trending liberal, or (b) liberal but liberals weren't the ones liberalizing stuff means you (c) simply can't read, reason, or think rationally.  Or you're an active liar.  Neither of them puts you in a positive light.

 

Teddy Roosevelt was no liberal. progressive, certainly.

populist certainly.

and come back and talk when we've removed the eugenics laws from the books. Haven't seen one Liberal running on a platform of removing the "don't mate with retards" laws, have you?